Israel Folau - Breach of contract or right to free speech?

[moXJO]

The media has a lot to answer for imo.
This fight is influenced by a larger push back. His gofundme page clocked over half a $mill from $400k in record time thanks to all the pc whinging articles that appeared.

If you feel like donating for shts and giggles and to make peter fitzSimmons ashamed to be australian:

https://au.gofundme.com/israel-folau-legal-action-fund


Given that you are all probably heading to hell you might as well make some bribes to carry the lords favor as well:

https://www.gofundme.com/davie-is-in-a-life-threatening-condition

https://www.gofundme.com/support-matts-fight
https://www.gofundme.com/Alex-Noble-IfightUfight

 

[wayneL]

Gents, what about this point expressed elsewhere:

Whether you believe Folau is in breach of his employment terms is immaterial.

Rugby Australia is in breach of the law, i.e. The Fair Work Act (employee cannot be sacked for religous expression).

A contract or Code of Conduct cannot be in breach of the Fair Work Act.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Just read Peter Fitzsimmons article

https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/israel...ou-just-go-fund-yourself-20190621-p5204j.html

and I agree with @Macquack and others, the sad reality as Fitzsimmons points out is that there are more worthy and desperate causes out there more worthy of our limited charitable dollars.
Still, Folau should not have been terminated imo.

 

[moXJO]

Just read Peter Fitzsimmons article

https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/israel...ou-just-go-fund-yourself-20190621-p5204j.html

and I agree with @Macquack and others, the sad reality as Fitzsimmons points out is that there are more worthy and desperate causes out there more worthy of our limited charitable dollars.
Still, Folau should not have been terminated imo.

FitzSimmons article amount to "Why won't you think of the children". In turn donations to folau spiked.

People donating to Folau are doing so in the belief that they are upholding a freedom from authoritarianism that has crept in. Something that affects everyone. It's about the law being tested, not the person or what he has said.

This has grown above the comments now.

 

[rederob]

Rob, the case Folau's team are running is that the ARU does not have the right at Law to impose those religous restrictions or terminate him.

That's true about Folau's team, but RA is not prosecuting his religious expression as such but, instead, the obligations he has to his colleagues and the rugby code.

Either the Contract or the Termination is ILLEGAL due to relevant Statutes.

Here we are on the slippery slope of unlawful versus illegal.
Ultimately the courts will determine if it was unlawful.
However, it is not illegal to have a code of conduct and expect players to abide it unless elements are indeed not supported in law. I cannot see any elements of the RA Code of Conduct being contrary to law.

Quoting a religious text in what he believes to be saving peoples souls is a very fine line for dismissal. He obviously has a case.

You should take the time to read on the matter at hand.
RA allows religious expression to the extent it is consistent with how players treat each other.

 

[moXJO]

You should take the time to read on the matter at hand.
RA allows religious expression to the extent it is consistent with how players treat each other.

RA is not the law last time I checked. But it will be interesting to see the outcome. RA has lost either way imo.

 

[rederob]

So you believe that employers should have the right to impose conditions on employees that bind them every minute of their lives ?

To the extent they have obligations which they agreed and are binding in their employment (and are lawful), then the answer is clearly yes.

Player A has trouble with his car, can't get any satisfaction from his dealer or the car maker, so vents his problems on social media. Oops, said car maker turns out to be a sponsor. Grounds for sacking ?

You would need to show how it affected his employment contract and I cannot see any chance it does, unless there were other things said that got the player into deep water.

However the idea that this should also extend to expression of beliefs is anathema to anyone who believes in a free society.

I realise you cannot.
It will not matter how many times I say it, you will just ignore the fact employers have a right to protect their workers from the slights of their coworkers, and to protect their business
It is as simple as realising that some actions carry consequences.
If Folau wants to continue to exercise his beliefs publicly then he should remove himself from undertakings preventing him from disrespecting those he plays with.

 

[moXJO]

From an article:

One of the stated objectives of Part 6-4, Division 2 of the Fair Work Act is to give effect to International Labour Organisation Conventions 111 and 158, which were adopted in 1958 and 1982 respectively, then and ratified by Australia in 1973 and 1993.

The ILO is an agency of the United Nations. Under these two instruments of international law, Australia agreed that it would enact laws eliminating religious and other discrimination in employment AND that it would legislate so that employment can't be terminated on invalid grounds, including because of an employee's religion.

According to the ILO, such religious discrimination includes discrimination based on a person's expression of their religious beliefs.

Accordingly, section 772(1) of the Fair Work Act makes it unlawful (subject to some irrelevant exceptions) for an employer to terminate an employee's employment because of, or for reasons including an employee's religion. And if an employee's religion includes a person's expression of their religious beliefs - "believers" hardly worship in a vacuum - then was Folau terminated for reasons including his religion, or not?

If an employee's employment is nonetheless terminated because of reasons including those which are statutorily unlawful under section 772(1), the employee has 21 days after the termination, to apply to the Fair Work Commission, asking it to deal with the matter.
Usually, the FWC deals with such matters by way of mediation or conciliation. Those methods of touchy-feely dispute resolution won't cut the mustard though, in resolving the dispute to the satisfaction of either RA and Folau. So once the FWC agrees, the Act requires it to issue a certificate to that effect. Thereafter, Folau is free to take his unlawful termination case to the Federal Court of Australia.
Remember, we're dealing with "unlawful" termination, not a guillotining which is merely unfair or harsh. Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasons INCLUDING that unlawful reason.

And if RA can't prove the termination had nothing at all to do with religion, then the Federal Court has the full jurisdiction to order that RA reinstate Folau; pay him full compensation; pay his (no doubt significant) legal bills; and pay a civil penalty of $A50,000 or more.

It's fair to say that an immense amount hinges on RA being able to absolutely delineate between it having terminated Folau's employment because he breached RA's applicable code of conduct by reason of expressing his religious beliefs; but NOT because of his religion, religious beliefs or the expression of those beliefs.

Moreover it's a dangerous division to say that a professional athlete's right to genuinely express their religious beliefs is mutually exclusive with his or her right to work.

 

[rederob]

People donating to Folau are doing so in the belief that they are upholding a freedom from authoritarianism that has crept in.

That is a guess. I could equally claim they are religious zealots a and homophobes.

It's about the law being tested, not the person or what he has said.

It's actually going to be about Folau's ability to claim the Fair Work Act covered his right to say what he did.
RA's actions have nothing to do with the Fair Work Act wrt to religious freedoms, so Folau is trying to cast a very wide net to draw it in.
It's also the case that Folau's public profile has significantly contributed to the damage he has done to the game, so it exactly opposite to your claims.

 

[moXJO]

That is a guess. I could equally claim they are religious zealots a and homophobes.

Yes that too.

It's actually going to be about Folau's ability to claim the Fair Work Act covered his right to say what he did.
RA's actions have nothing to do with the Fair Work Act wrt to religious freedoms, so Folau is trying to cast a very wide net to draw it in.
It's also the case that Folau's public profile has significantly contributed to the damage he has done to the game, so it exactly opposite to your claims.

Um no see above.

 

[rederob]

From an article:
(and in response to your "Um no see above")

Darren Cane's article was very good (doubt he prepared much of it - stand to be corrected!).
Should RA lose its case it opens many floodgates in sport, because some of the provisions that RA relies on are unique to this industry.
Worst of all would be that social media could be used to actively humiliate and denigrate (that is, completely disrespect) anyone you play with or against.
Courts make some interesting rulings on occasion, but tend to favour the rights of business to protect their interests.
As you said earlier, the loser has been and is likely to continue to be Rugby, irrespective of the outcome.

 

[SirRumpole]

It will not matter how many times I say it, you will just ignore the fact employers have a right to protect their workers from the slights of their coworkers, and to protect their business
It is as simple as realising that some actions carry consequences.

That's a typical snowflake response. People get slighted everyday and they have the right to respond in kind.

But tell me, how many people do you think actually agree with what Folau said ?

Social media has been awash with those opposed to him, as has mainstream media. He's been made to look small and that's where "protection" comes from, the people. In fact Folau probably needs more protection from the "drunks and fornicators" in his team than anyone else does.

Folau's views can be dismissed in 2 words, "prove it". That's all that needs to be said, the rest is grandstanding and virtue signalling by the ARU.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

 

[rederob]

That's a typical snowflake response. People get slighted everyday and they have the right to respond in kind.

As I said before, you need to show your points have merit. All you do is repeat yourself.

But tell me, how many people do you think actually agree with what Folau said ?

Who cares!
This is about an employee disrespecting this colleagues and damaging his employer.

Social media has been awash with those opposed to him, as has mainstream media. He's been made to look small and that's where "protection" comes from, the people.

Again, it has nothing to do with why RA has acted.
Aside from that, his views are very funny to a lot of people. He is welcome to them, but as a role model he really should not be so immature.

Folau's views can be dismissed in 2 words, "prove it".

Too funny Rumpy.
Why not read and understand some of the foregoing. The most obvious transgression, beyond doubt, is his use of social media in a manner he has been previously warned against.
I get that you don't get it, so try to provide something else that's at least relevant.

 

[SirRumpole]

As I said before, you need to show your points have merit. All you do is repeat yourself.

Because you simply fail to understand my point,

An individual's private life has nothing to do with their employer.

OK ?

 

[SirRumpole]

and damaging his employer.

Prove his employer has been damaged.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

I swear Sdajii has hijacked Rob's account.

 

[wayneL]

Prove his employer has been damaged.

Exactly.

RA's actions have done the most damage to RA. If folks just rolled their eyes and let this issue slip under the waves... It wouldn't even be an issue.

Also, my concern is what sort of can of worms does this open? Any sort of comment that may offend any of generation snowflake *could result in the same.

Where is the line now?

What happens when P gets added to LBGTQXYZ. Will it be sackable to shxtcan pedos? (I'm being rhetorical, but this future scenaro would not surprise me)

 

[rederob]

An individual's private life has nothing to do with their employer.

Agreed.
But this has nothing to do with what balls they juggle at home, and you still cannot grasp that point.

Prove his employer has been damaged.

Seriously?
Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?

RA's actions have done the most damage to RA. If folks just rolled their eyes and let this issue slip under the waves... It wouldn't even be an issue.

Then why didn't Folau do that?

Also, my concern is what sort of can of worms does this open? Any sort of comment that may offend any of generation snowflake *could result in the same.

Typical of your garbage. Apply some thought to come up with real issues - because it is not too hard.

What happens when P gets added to LBGTQXYZ. Will it be sackable to shxtcan pedos? (I'm being rhetorical, but this future scenaro would not surprise me)

You mean when should we not put BS in front of all your posts?

 

[Smurf1976]

Seems like a very slippery slope to me.

This time - rugby team sacks player for expressing religious view saying it harms the team.

Next - coal mining company sacks truck driver who posted online that climate change might be a real thing and that people will die because of it.

The coal mine would have a stronger argument that the comment amounts to a direct attack on their business than the rugby team does, given that they’re not in the business of religion, but I still don’t think anyone should be sacked over it.